Differences between urban regeneration and urban renewal
Urban renewal and urban regeneration have been differentiated by Van der Merwe (2010:1), who, in adopting the definition from the report People and Places: An Overview of Urban Renewal, initially defined urban renewal as the ‘redevelopment of economic infrastructure,’ while urban regeneration is defined as ‘the redevelopment of derelict residential areas, usually linked to the development of human and social capital’ (2010:1). Later in the report’s headings however the terms are used interchangeably.
In an article in the Serbian Project Management Journal, Andelic and Mihic (2016) state that studies of urban renewals, particularly in Toronto and New York, indicate the extent to which the public sector can be involved in the drive for investments and the effect this can have on the ‘social, economic and ecological aspect of city development.’ By making no distinction between the two concepts, Heffron and Haynes (2011:2) describe both concepts as a ‘general class of urban development involving considerable modification to a cluster of housing units and related infrastructure.’ They state, however, (2011:2) that urban regeneration is ‘a redevelopment scheme that involves positive i.e. interventionist planning’ The authors indicate (2011:6) that ‘urban planning and development is an effective means of taking people out of poverty.’ When referring to the Favelas in Brazil and the Favela Bairro Project in particular, they state (2011:13) that
18 | P a g e the objective ‘is to initiate a longer-term process of “normalization and integration” by incorporating those areas previously excluded ‘in terms of physical infrastructure, services and ownership’ (ibid).
Urban regeneration is a vexed and complicated issue. Despite decades of planning and consultation on how best to achieve the desired outcome, effective solutions have yet to be found. Rosly and Rashid (2013:1) perhaps best explain the concept when referring to the urban regeneration programmes in Malaysia, ‘Urban revitalization and regeneration together with the issues of energy sustainability and the need to reduce pollutant emissions are today the major challenges facing the planning of cities’.
Rosly and Rashid (2013:1) refer to the ‘the concept of urban regeneration in Malaysia’s cities to promote a return to the city, revitalize the city centre, restore activity in a fiercely competitive international context, and implement initiatives to improve the quality of the environment operating in a wide sense towards a smart growth’ (ibid). This concept epitomizes what may be a universal solution to defeating urban crime, grime and disintegration. We are reminded that ‘urban regeneration processes accomplish the growing importance in literature of concepts like territorial governance, institutional relational density, creativity, social capital, city branding, city image and place marketing’ (ibid).
No process of revitalization or regeneration will succeed without the full support of those residents who are affected by the process. Referring to Couch (1990:2), Rosly and Rashid (2013:6) explain that urban regeneration can be seen as a relationship forged between public representatives and entrepreneurs with buy-in from citizens affected by the process. They emphasize that ‘it is thus a multi-faceted and complex process which should not be viewed merely as a physical and financial proposition, but as a sociological, cultural, economic and political matter as well’ (Couch,1990 cited in Rosly and Rashid 2013:6). Rosly and Rashid (2013:6) state that the need for a ‘comprehensive and integrated process’ is reinforced when regeneration is considered. Of particular importance is the claim made by
19 | P a g e Roberts and Sykes (2000) and referred to by Rosly and Rashid (2013:6) that a realistic renewal programme must approach regeneration in a holistic way and be based upon a multi-disciplinary understanding of the social and economic forces affecting urban areas and the physical nature of towns and cities. Two important aspects of urban regeneration are public-private partnerships and community involvement (Tyler 2002).
2.2.1.1 Public Private Partnerships
Public private partnerships have been defined in many ways. PPP Knowledge Lab, a division of the World Bank (2015:1), defines them as ‘a long-term contract between a private party and a government entity for providing a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and management responsibility, and remuneration is linked to performance.’ The Private-Public partnership handbook (undated: 6) defines PPP’s as a ‘framework that, while engaging the private sector, acknowledges and structures the role for government in ensuring that social obligations are met and successful sector reforms and public investments achieved.’
2.2.1.2 Community Participation
Sinwell’s claim (2009:336) that ‘participation is often hailed as a salient component in the attainment of development’ is the catalyst driving his 350-page thesis on the limitations on transforming development in Alexandra Township. Despite indicating some hope for the future, he concludes that
‘both invited and invented participatory spaces in Alexandra clearly have significant limitations, particularly their lack of engagement with immanent development which theorists Hickey and Mohan (2004) have argued is an essential component of any transformative project’ (Sinwell 2009:336). This failure by the authorities to effectively engage with communities prior to and during the Alexandra Renewal Project has had a restrictive and debilitating effect on the ability to deliver this project.
20 | P a g e Three important definitions of urban regeneration are worth noting and have been referred to by Tsenkova (2002:1). These derive from Couch (1990), DETR, (2000), and Roberts and Sykes (2000). Firstly, Couch (1990) indicates a move in developing countries from ‘urban renewal and revitalization procedures to a comprehensive urban regeneration approach based on the acceptance that ‘successful regeneration should also incorporate social and environmental policies’ (Tsenkova 2002:1).
Secondly, the DETR, the organization that drives the implementation of regeneration policies, views urban regeneration as being about employment and its creation, protection of wealth and about people and power (Tsenkova 2002:1). Thirdly, Robert and Sykes (2000) appear to incorporate the substance of the of the two definitions above by providing a view that urban regeneration ‘is a comprehensive and integrated vision and action to address urban problems through a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area and that ‘it can perform an enabling role in achieving sustainability’.
Tsenkova (2002:10) has undertaken an extensive study into how public-private partnerships have played a fundamental role in the success of urban regeneration. Citing the private residential investment in the London Docklands, he points out that the key to the success of regeneration is that
‘incremental development’ and public investment in infrastructure needs to be carefully orchestrated to leverage an additional flow of capital to generate investor confidence and a critical mass of development (ibid: 7). For the purpose of this study, I have adopted the definition of ‘incremental development’(Tsenkova:7) which is anchored in public investment which, if supported by community participation and public, private partnership, will, according to Rosly and Rashid (2013:1), encourage a return to the cities, together with an emphasis on economic, physical and environmental improvement. Insofar as informal settlements are concerned, in-situ upgrading remains the most effective and practical solution. These fundamental criteria have not been complied with in the Alexandra Renewal Project and will be elucidated below.
21 | P a g e Urban renewal, as defined by the Minimum Cost Housing Group Report of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, can be defined by a number of terms including those of ‘urban regeneration, urban revitalization, gentrification, neighbourhood renewal, rehabilitation and renovation’ (McGill 2016:3).
When assessing the process of urban renewal in ‘developing countries’
(ibid), the report indicates that efforts for renewal have concentrated on dealing with the challenges of urban slums which are considered the fastest growing portions of third world cities (Hardoy and Satterthwaite quoted in CHF,1990). McGill (2016:4) notes that before the 1980’s, the focus in developing countries was on ‘squatter eradication and the relocation of the population to low cost housing projects’ (McGill, 2016:4). This, they claim, changed in the 1970’s with ‘slum and squatter upgrading and sites and services’ being emphasized (ibid).
For a very long time the South African authorities drove and appeared set on a process of eradicating informal settlements. Despite claiming to be supportive of in-situ upgrading, the Ministry of Housing used the ‘language’
of eradication’ (Huchzermeyer 2011:114). The appointment of Lindiwe Sisulu as Minister of Human Settlements brought about a ‘determination to reach an informal settlements eradication target’ (ibid: 118). The implications of this, according to Tshikotshi (2009:95) referring to Huchzermeyer (2008), would compel ‘the desperate poor into exploitative rental accommodation, into an urban reality that consists of a journey from one eviction to the other.’ The target of having a total eradication of informal settlements within 10 years, i.e. by 2014, was boldly announced by both the Minister and the Premier of Gauteng (Huchzermeyer 2011:118). Despite 2014 having come and gone, the goal of eradication remains just that. In a written reply to a question posed by myself to the MEC of Human Settlements in Gauteng in February 2017, the MEC indicated that there are over 500 informal settlements in Gauteng and despite indications supporting the eradication approach (the last being in March 2017), in situ upgrading appears now to be a priority together with the possibility of a formalization process being considered for informal settlements
22 | P a g e According to a report issued by McGill University policies have tended to evolve from a demolition and reconstruction approach to a softer, more oriented approach, which concentrates on the renovation of existing structures (McGill, 2016:5). It is interesting to observe that at the first International Seminar on Urban Renewal in 1958 in France, three principles of urban renewal were named, i.e. development consisting of demolition and reconstruction, rehabilitation and improvement of the original structures, and conservation and preservation of historical monuments (ibid). As reported by McGill University in their article on urban renewal (2016:5), what may be ideal may not always be practically possible.